Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,252
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by homestarunner93 View Post
    So, instead of rewarding one 7-9 team every once in a while that plays in an extraordinarily bad division, your solution is to reward 3 or 4 of them every year? Makes sense.
    I lol'd

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    36,932
    vCash
    1255
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBlueCrew View Post
    then what would be the point of winning a division? if anything? what would be point of watching week 17 making it more useless than it already for most teams.
    a playoff spot? This year Dallas vs Washington would've had the same intensity...it was for a playoff spot.


  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,077
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    ...@ CCU grad 1, well I certainly do not like watching "bad" games, but having one more weekend, and maybe some kind of blind draw from each confrence(winning record required) might spice things up a bit.
    Every year when the play off start there is two weeks of excitement followed by three weeks of crawling along.
    Championship weekend is really empty for how important it is.
    I realize you are directing this at another poster, but how would championship weekend be any different? Championship weekends will always only have 2 games/4 teams. It is the nature of the elimination system, eventually there are only 4 teams left. If it bores you now, I expect you would still be bored no matter the system to get there. Are you sure you enjoy the play-offs at all?

    I would like to see better play off match -ups with a focus of getting the two best teams in the SB.
    Well, getting the 2 best teams surly doesn't include having a bunch of "also rans" included in the play-offs.
    Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    20
    vCash
    1500
    I have an idea! Leave it the way it is!

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,292
    vCash
    7100
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    This season your absolutely right there would be 4 teams at the bottom of a 20 team field, @ 7-9.
    this has been the case many times in the past,and my point in referencing the poor record was to point out situations where a ten win team fails top qualify because they are in a strong division that year.

    If its a purist mentality that drives your perspectrive I dont know how you can be happy with that, and it happens almost every year.
    Sucks for those teams, maybe they ought to win the necessary games and get in if they're so good. That's part of the fun of the game. Actually caring about the regular season is important. I don't really want NFL teams like the Spurs in the NBA to coast on their talent and coaching until the playoffs, resting their good players often. I'm not faulting them as an organization because it has proven to be a sound strategy, but I don't even want that to be a viable strategy in the NFL. Now, I'm sure you'll counter with, "well, teams rest players in weeks 16/17 sometimes." That's true, but it isn't as rampant as it was with all week 17 games being divisional contests. It is also better to confine it to one, maybe two weeks instead of it happening all year.
    On Cam Newton:

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    So it's official.

    This jerk off is going to be the first QB taken in the first round (or maybe the first 5) in the modern era to throw less than 300 passes at DI level. and he might go #1 overall.


    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nfl scouting is a joke.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,077
    vCash
    1500
    Let’s face it the 16 game schedule is an impediment to a lot of things, but all things considered the NFL does it right. There are benefits and penalties built into the schedule, division system and play-offs that have pluses and minuses, drawbacks and benefits, things that are fair and unfair for the sake of parity and division races.

    Should all division winners get a home game? Yes. Division battles make the NFL great! Anyone want to watch a NFC-East battle on Sunday night? How about an NFC-North game on Monday night? How about a Patriots/Jets or Falcons/Saints? Generally, division games and the rivalries they come from are the good stuff, those games are some of the best during the season. The NFL wouldn’t be the same without the rivalries that the division races create. There is a price to pay for that. That price gets paid at the gate to the play-offs and who gets home field. Is it fair? Well, maybe not, but is it worth the cost to fan the flames of division races and the rivalries they create. In my view it is a no brainer! I realize it appears less than fair that some 11-5 team may have to travel to some 8-8 division winner’s stadium, but the prize for a division win is home field advantage. It needs to be that way as an effort to give some benefit to a division that may have played 2 better divisions in a particular year because of the rotational schedule. The 11-5 team may have got those wins playing a soft schedule. Is the system perfect? Not perfect, maybe not fair, but a home game is a worthy prize for a division title.

    Good teams get penalized every year. If they win the division, next year they will play 5 division winners, 2 more than the lesser teams in their division. That is not insignificant. This is all in the name of parity. So, in the name of parity a lesser team has an opportunity to play a lesser schedule and 2 additional weaker teams and win his division because of that. Is that fair? Maybe not, but the desire to create parity outweighs the need for being perfectly fair. Think 2 games don’t matter, 5 division races were decided by a game this season. But, parity matters and a little advantage to a weaker team is worth the price.
    Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,286
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Letís face it the 16 game schedule is an impediment to a lot of things, but all things considered the NFL does it right. There are benefits and penalties built into the schedule, division system and play-offs that have pluses and minuses, drawbacks and benefits, things that are fair and unfair for the sake of parity and division races.

    Should all division winners get a home game? Yes. Division battles make the NFL great! Anyone want to watch a NFC-East battle on Sunday night? How about an NFC-North game on Monday night? How about a Patriots/Jets or Falcons/Saints? Generally, division games and the rivalries they come from are the good stuff, those games are some of the best during the season. The NFL wouldnít be the same without the rivalries that the division races create. There is a price to pay for that. That price gets paid at the gate to the play-offs and who gets home field. Is it fair? Well, maybe not, but is it worth the cost to fan the flames of division races and the rivalries they create. In my view it is a no brainer! I realize it appears less than fair that some 11-5 team may have to travel to some 8-8 division winnerís stadium, but the prize for a division win is home field advantage. It needs to be that way as an effort to give some benefit to a division that may have played 2 better divisions in a particular year because of the rotational schedule. The 11-5 team may have got those wins playing a soft schedule. Is the system perfect? Not perfect, maybe not fair, but a home game is a worthy prize for a division title.

    Good teams get penalized every year. If they win the division, next year they will play 5 division winners, 2 more than the lesser teams in their division. That is not insignificant. This is all in the name of parity. So, in the name of parity a lesser team has an opportunity to play a lesser schedule and 2 additional weaker teams and win his division because of that. Is that fair? Maybe not, but the desire to create parity outweighs the need for being perfectly fair. Think 2 games donít matter, 5 division races were decided by a game this season. But, parity matters and a little advantage to a weaker team is worth the price.
    Sorry subroc and homestar, I knda bailed on the thread,b/c when people dont feel like a topic is worth discussing,they tend to make comments that can only serve to incite me into meaningless barbs, I dont get why people enjoy doing that.

    @ Homestar,I really enjoy the drama of the other sports "series" formats ,but realize there cant even be a 3 out of 5 in the NFL,so I really was just trying to figure a less predictable format that doesnt reward mediocrity(division champions) with a playoff spot, or provides things like GB,NE,Buff, the potential for season ending snow bowl games that are inheirently unfair to other teams.

    Ive heard people say ,"thats how the games should be played" but lets face it, they played them like that in the 40s and 50s because they didint have a choice.The SB is always in a fair weather stadium or a dome,I hate seeing Good teams grind to a halt in tundra weather.

    The other thing I wanted to see was a abandonment of the play off format that often supplies us with a divisional matchups weve already seen twice before that year.

    Keeping the confrences homogenous is a little pointless especially when historically one confrence seems to have a better level of talent for large cycles of time.The 9ers V cowbys in the 90s was far more enteratining then any of the SBs dallas won.The Raiders and the Steelers all those years in the 70s produced the eventual SB winner every time.

    @ Subroc.
    I just think maybe having an extra week of drama as to who was making those last two games would make for a more exciting playoff format.
    By the time W/C weekend is over you can almost etch the confrence and sb participants in stone.
    It "feels" anticlimatic for a sport whos weekly intrigue for such a short timeframe is so intense.
    each week in the NFL is a lifetime and then the playoff are over and done with in a blink of an eye.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,292
    vCash
    7100
    @ Homestar,I really enjoy the drama of the other sports "series" formats ,but realize there cant even be a 3 out of 5 in the NFL,so I really was just trying to figure a less predictable format that doesnt reward mediocrity(division champions) with a playoff spot, or provides things like GB,NE,Buff, the potential for season ending snow bowl games that are inheirently unfair to other teams.
    Man, that's exactly what you're doing when you let 20 freaking teams in the playoffs. You're rewarding no less than 5 or 6 mediocre teams that never had any business whatsoever being in the playoffs by letting them in the playoffs every single year.
    On Cam Newton:

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    So it's official.

    This jerk off is going to be the first QB taken in the first round (or maybe the first 5) in the modern era to throw less than 300 passes at DI level. and he might go #1 overall.


    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nfl scouting is a joke.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    37,073
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    By making the rankings based on , w/l records, scoring,overall offense, overall defense, to ratios,you would no longer be forced to allow a team from any single division to even make the playoffs.
    The divisions would simply be a regional alignment with no importance.

    That 7-9 team wouldnt get in any more Homestar, at all, becasue the more deserving teams in other divisions and confrences would fill out the play offs, how many times has a team with a better record been excluded for the sake of a division winner that stunk?

    If the NFC wound up putting in 15 of the 20 teams because the afc was crap, wouldnt thant make for better games?
    You're forgetting that that (excluding a "better" team) isn't all that common/widespread.

    The only team that could be considered "snubbed" this season was Chicago. If you expanded the playoffs to 20 (like you want to do), you'd include 4 losing-record teams in 2012, 0 in 2011, 1 in 2010 (you STILL don't get rid of a losing team even in the season that had a losing team in the playoffs...), 0 in 2009.

    To go a bit further, only 5 teams had better records than the 48 playoff teams in the past 4 seasons (and 4 of those came in 2010 when a 7-9 team made it...). The playoffs are fine.


  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    37,073
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    I have always believed that to be one of the biggest MYTHS in Pro Football. If you only have a 4 year career, you SUCK!!! The only way you are having a 4 year career if you do ANYTHING is if you have a career ending injury. Have never bought in to that ideology!
    It's the average player, dude...the one/2 year guys count, too.

    I'm sure all of these guys that make the NFL suck. Maybe you should go show them up after you put down your Cheetos and porn.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    435
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by homestarunner93 View Post
    Man, that's exactly what you're doing when you let 20 freaking teams in the playoffs. You're rewarding no less than 5 or 6 mediocre teams that never had any business whatsoever being in the playoffs by letting them in the playoffs every single year.
    Basically what the OP is saying, is that because a 10-6 team misses the playoffs every now and then, that they need to start letting a bunch of 7-8 win teams make the playoffs. That makes no sense.

    Oh, and maybe the reason that "the same matchups" always happen in the post season, is that those are actually the best teams year in and year out. Just a thought.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    824
    vCash
    1500
    if you really want to switch it up... you have a draft... and...

    players born in california can only be drafted by teams in california... players born in texas can only be drafted by teams in texas... etc... (same for coaches)

    and which ever state produced the best players and coaches will have the best teams...

    and then youd really be rooting for your home team...

    and then...

    you introduce hockey sticks into the game... but only home teams get hockey sticks

    and then...

    you introduce wild animals into the sport... you know, a lion as 34 ILB... an elephant as a NT... etc..

    and then...
    Last edited by GSRaider; 01-28-2013 at 02:14 AM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSPORTS98 View Post
    The NFL is built on parity in case you missed it and don't under the salary cap.

    Somehow you got lost between this year's AFC and last seasons as only four AFC team would have made the playoffs using your theory. Whatever the *** means, I just laugh b/c your soution doesn't even made sense as 13 teams would have made the playoffs this season and only 9 last season. Ridiculous Not to mention, creates absoutley meaningless football games across the board as teams without a shot at 10 wins are done and those at 10 wins can lay down. Ridiculous.
    what;'s your point? sur ethe NFL is built on parity, but that doesnt change the fact that parity breeds bad football.


    my solution makes perfect sense for 2 reasons:

    1) its what i want to see, and somethign i acknowledged has not chance of happenings.

    2) i never said ten wins gets you in. i said not having ten wins keeps you out. so if you have 10 wins but would be the 7th playoff team in the AFC or NFC, you dont make it. if you have nine wins and owuld have maid the playoffs, an extra team gets a bye. simple as that.

    like it or not, its a better FOOTBALL option than lettign ****** teams in. i dont care about a business, revenue, money or any other stand point, im tlaking purely football
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,226
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinstripe power View Post

    2) i never said ten wins gets you in. i said not having ten wins keeps you out.

    - Make you wonder

    and ther rest had so many spelling errors it made as little sense.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    "We have been watching and waiting, but I wouldn't say we intend to continue to do that. I think you watch and wait to try and assess a situation and act accordingly. It might involve more waiting. It might involve moving in one direction or another. We've done plenty of watching and waiting. If we can move in a particular direction, we might do that."

    Sandy Alderson: 2011.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by NYSPORTS98 View Post
    - Make you wonder

    and ther rest had so many spelling errors it made as little sense.
    or you normal translation: i have no response so I just bring up spelling errors to make it seem like thats makes your correct point wrong.
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •